Influence of Cigarette Smoking on the Overall Perception of Dental Health among Adults Aged 20–79 Years, United States, 1988–1994
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Investigation into the relationship between lifestyle factors (particularly cigarette smoking) and perceived oral health has been limited. Data from the third National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES II), 1988-1994, were used to explore this relationship in a large sample of U.S. adults. METHODS: This study used data on 13,357 dentate participants in NHANES III aged 20-79 years. In NHANES III, information on perceived dental health, sociodemographic attributes, smoking status, frequency of dental visits, dental insurance, and general health perception were collected during a home interview, and oral health status was assessed at a mobile examination center. RESULTS: Overall, 34.4% of individuals in the study sample reported having an unfavorable perception of their dental health by qualifying it as "fair" or "poor." Furthermore, 46.6% of smokers had an unfavorable dental health perception, compared to 28.3% of non-smokers. An interaction between smoking and race/ethnicity was found in logistic regression modeling. Stratified results show that cigarette smoking was not a significant predictor for an unfavorable dental health perception among individuals who self-identified as Mexican American, but smoking was a significant predictor for an unfavorable dental health perception among those who identified as non-Hispanic black or non-Hispanic white. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to describe the effects of smoking on dental health perception while controlling for examined oral health status. Because perceived dental health is a potential indicator for dental care utilization, a better knowledge of the factors that influence dental health perception is not only important for dental services planning, but also for understanding oral health-related quality of life issues. Additionally, given that smoking may negatively affect dental health perception, these findings have potential implications for smoking cessation activities conducted by dental care providers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".